9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etel nuts from Berhampore Court Station to Sealdah Goods, B.N. Railway, Calcutta. Upon arrival of the said goods at the Sealdah station the petitioner took delivery of the consignment and transported the same for storage to the godown of Messrs. Mazumdar Bros. of 14 Rupchand Roy Street, Calcutta who carried on business as Aratdars or Commission Agents. Immediately upon the arrival of the goods at the godown of the said Aratdars the respondent No. 2 who is the Deputy Superintendent, Preventive Branch and the respondent No. 3 who is the Inspector in the Land Customs Department appeared at the godown of the Aratdars and made enquiries about the said bags of betel nuts. At or about the same time the said wholesaler Kalipada Bhattacharjee, also appeared at the godown and upon being interrogated by the Inspector as to the source from which and also the manner in which the betel nuts had been procured, he is alleged to have told the Inspector that he had purchased the betel nuts from different traders and merchants in Berhampore and also offered to produce for the scrutiny of the Inspector all papers and books of account kept by him at Berhampore. The Inspector thereupon asked the Aratdar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order appears to have been made by the Collector of Land Customs which inter alia stated as follows :- "I therefore, under the provisions of Section 7 of Land Customs Act read with section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act order confiscation of the above 84 bags weighing 168 maunds of the betel nuts which may however be redeemed within a period of six weeks on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 45 per maund plus import duty payable thereon and incidental charges if any. As regards the quantity in the remaining 15 bags although the accounts are not satisfactory, I give the benefit of doubt to the offenders and order that these may be released." 5.On the 7th June 1950 the petitioner asked for immediate return of the 15 bags of betel nuts which had been released by the Collector and the said bags were thereafter returned by the Aratdars on or about the 10th June 1950 upon the joint receipt granted by the petitioner and the said wholesaler. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Collector of Land Customs. On the 30th March 1951 the Central Board of Revenue passed the following orders : - "The Board sees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 1949, 19th April 1950, 29th April 1950 and 10th May 1950 there is no offer to produce any book of accounts. It is after the Collector of Customs had made the order of the 19th May 1950 that the petitioner started the story of having some kutcha account book in his possession which it is alleged he offered to produce before the Customs authorities. 9.Again in the concluding portion of paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner has made the case that Kalipada told the Inspector that he had purchased the betel nuts, from different traders in Behrampore. This statement was made to give the Court the idea that goods were not imported from Pakistan but were purchased in the Indian Union by Kalipada who then sold the same to the petitioner. But it is clear from paragraph 9 of the affidavit in opposition of Arun Kanti Dutt and from paragraph 1 of the letter of Kalipada, dated the 26th December 1949 that Kalipada had stated before the Customs authorities that he had imported 150 bags from Pakistan and out of that he sold 65 bags to the petitioner. 10.The petitioner in paragraph 13 of the petition has set up a case of theft of his material documents as he apprehended that the productio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtain any advantage from the proceedings and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. That is perfectly plain and requires no authority to justify it." 13.This principle has been applied by Panckridge J. in the case of Indumati Devi v. Court of Wards (42 C.W.R. 230) and by other High Courts in AIR (1951) Simla 1 and AIR (1951) All. 746 at 752-754, 767. 14.It appears to me that this application should fail on this ground alone. 15.As I have allowed the parties to go into the merits, I propose to deal with the points raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties in this application. 16.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was never apprised of the charges made against him nor was he allowed proper opportunities to meet the charges but the order of confiscation and imposition of fine was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on L.R. 9 Exch at 196, AIR (1939) Bom. 35 at 39, 51 C.W.N. 612 and 24 Q.B.D. 712 at 714. 17.In the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Mr. Philips it is stated in paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions as to levelling of charges by the Customs authorities (page 460) did not intend to lay down that regular charge-sheet should be submitted to the persons accused of the offences but what he meant to say was that the charges must be brought home to such persons in such a way that they might meet the charges. 21.The petitioner submitted a detailed statement by his letter dated 24th December 1949 and by his subsequent letter dated the 3rd January 1950 which was written in answer to the memorandum of the 28th November 1949 made it clear to the Customs authorities that he had only the purchase vouchers in his possession and he had no other documents. 22.Kalipada also submitted a detailed statement and produced all the supporting documents and appended gists of the books of accounts. On the strength of the information supplied by Kalipada the Customs officials carried on investigation and made enquiries about Rahamatulla Biswas and collected information from G. Dass & Co. Kalipada in his affidavit admits that he was aware that investigation was proceeding. The petitioner in his letter admits that he was also aware that inquiry was going on. Admittedly the petitioner saw the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person charged with the offence contended that Sections 15 and 18 of the Act and the definition of "News Sheet" as given in Section 2(6) of the Act were ultra vires and void in view of Art. 10(1)(a) read with Art. 13 of the Constitution. It was held by the majority of the Supreme Court that Art. 13 was not retrospective and so it did not make the existing laws which were inconsistent with the fundamental rights void ab initio or for all purposes. If an act is done before the commencement of the Constitution in contravention of the provisions of any law which becomes void with respect of the exercise of any fundamental rights the inconsistent law is not wiped out so far as the past act is concerned. 25.In the case before me the offence was no doubt committed in 1949 but the order or confiscation and imposition of penalty which is challenged as being made in violation of the principles of natural justice was passed on the 19th May 1950. It is this order which furnished the cause of action for the petitioner applying for the writ under Art. 226. Until the order was made the petitioner had no right to apply for writ under Art. 226. The act complained of being one which was done after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
